@Nolan yeah context is missing. When I said I don’t care if anyone’s done it. Not about the information - why would I ask for some information that I didn’t care about. The I don’t care was about the whole point of the discussion in the first place. As in, it doesn’t matter if someone has or hasn’t, it doesn’t change my belief that Nintendo will, and also should, launch their online service mid way through s generation and charge people to play all games.
So i was interested in the information. But either way it doesn’t change what Nintendo are doing.
If that makes sense.

Runny hasn’t been here for months and months and it’s been great. He was about when the place was a disaster. Not all his fault, not blaming, but just saying that he hasn’t been around here while it’s been great. But in my opinion the first time he comes back it drags it back down, completely unnecessaraiky, to the awful wii u days when we lost loads of our best members.

@rummy on my phone, so can’t quite effectively. So I’ll just post in here.
Forst point. I wasn’t dismissing his point. They are two separate, non contradictory (I’m glad at least you’ve admitted this was a false statement you made) comments. One, genuine curiosity if anyone did. Two, irrespective of everything, I don’t think it matters if a company has or hasn’t done it before. I mean, it’s so simple, so clear, I don’t understand how anyone can have the reaction you had.
Sedond point. Do you really not see the utter hilarity of condemning me for speaking for other posters, while doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!!! Oh boy. The difference being I have evidence in that no one, like in the above, expressed annoyance. There was just a discussion between a few posters. Seemed okay to me. Yet you come in, and speak for the forum And express your dismay at the posts.
With this. And your final point. I do think it would be best if you do step down from moderation. Not only have you not been seen in months, the moment you do you’ve completely derailed the thread and soured it, making bizarrre accusations.

Haha, a case study of one, what a clinical trial. I've had plus for 4 years, played it online a handful of times, I wouldn't profess that that situation is the norm. And people will play smash brothers an incredible amount for years and years, splatoon too, and many many others. When I boot up the switch I have loads of friends playing, 12 people were playing Mario kart last night for example, like most of them do every single week. A few of us have played rocket league over 100 hours each since launch, some over 200 (looking at you JBS), Smash brothers, animal crossing etc will be insane online games. Personal preferences aside, it's a very strange thing to say.
Any even so, doesn't the fact it's a third of the price as the others justify even further?!

Yeah it's one update behind ps4/xbox by the sounds of it. Not too fussed about that to be honest, I mean, the is meant to have loads of content, so not like it'll be short of content, and something new in a few months will be decent. Though if they can't be trusted then that's another matter...
Might wait for a bargain....

I understand peoples viewpoint, I just don't agree with it. You kept saying it's anti-consumer, no benefit to consumer paying for it. You can say that about everything can't you? It's not better for the consumer to pay for everything, it's better to get everything for free? But it's such a non-argument.
I get that people may not know, but they soon will know. Then they make a decision whether they want to or not. And for Nintendos game not suited to online... I mean... I don't know even know where to start with that; so you think people don't play Mario kart other than the odd time? Smash brothers wouldn't be big online game, or splatoon isn't, or arms doesn't have a community... Why are Nintendos online games (never mind 3rd parties) not worthy of paying a subscription compared to others?

I don't think any (bar you) thought it was flaimbating or trolling. And they're not even remotely contradictory. One is a genuine questions I asked Shiekah, the other is my opinion on the matter. Whatever the answer to the first, doesn't change my opinion. How is that contradictory?
I think for me, because I've known paid online was coming at the moment this thing was formally announced, I don't understand why people see it as an issue. There'll be some people who'll complain - there always is about everything. But ultimately it'll be a small issue, people will get used to it, and next year we'll forget it was any different.
Ultimately, don't think there is much of a middle ground, paid online is coming.

Ah come on, there won't be any confusion at all. Paying online is pretty much standard, and in general subscriptions are standard across software, apps, games all sorts. It's not going to be confusing when Nintendo confirm the exact details of - now you have to pay to play online. People aren't going to be scratching their heads confused at it.
What would be confusing, is some games you can play with out it, and some you can.
Your fortnite example, my nephew had their plus stopped; they now think they can't play fortnite anymore. Because, absolutely rightly, logics says if you have to pay to play games online, that includes everything